| 摘 要: 目的 比较 2 种常见护听器基线和干预后的声衰减值,评估 2 种护听器的降噪效果。方法 通过问卷调查获得 108 名研究对象的一般人口学特征、职业史和护听器使用的相关信息资料;采用 3MTM E-A-R fitTM双耳验证系统测量工人佩戴泡棉耳塞和预成型耳塞的个体声衰减值(PAR);PAR 与标称值的比较采用单样本 t 检验或单样本秩和检验;2 种护听器在同一研究对象左右耳的基线和干预后 PAR 比较采用 Wilcoxon 符号秩和检验;护听器 PAR 通过率的评估采用 χ2 检验,检验水准 α=0.05(双侧)。结果 研究对象 2 种护听器基线和干预后 PAR 均小于标称值(P<0.001),且 2 种护听器的基线无明显差异(P>0.05),在各个频率的实际声衰减值均低于理论声衰减值(P<0.05),泡棉耳塞干预前后 PAR 和差值均大于预成型耳塞(P<0.001)。2 种护听器干预后 PAR 通过率均提高,泡棉耳塞(67.59%)高于预成型耳塞(17.59%)。泡棉耳塞干预后的声衰减值在4000、8000 Hz 处高于理论声衰减值(最大差值 9 dB),预成型耳塞在 500~ 8000 Hz 处低于理论声衰减值(最大差值 11 dB)。结论 护听器的标称值高估其实际的声衰减水平,实行一对一培训和耳塞适合性检验有助于改善不同护听器的 PAR;但不同护听器的培训干预对其降噪效果影响不同,应结合声衰减频谱特征正确选择和佩戴适合工作噪声现场的护听器, 提高降噪效果。 |
| 关键词: 护听器 耳塞 噪声性听力损失 适合性检验 个体声衰减值(PAR) 教育干预 |
|
中图分类号: TB53
文献标识码: A
|
| 基金项目: 广东省职业病防治院重点科研课题项目(Z2023-12);广东省医学科学技术研究基金项目(B2023408) |
|
| Comparison of paired sound attenuation values of two common hearing protectors |
|
FAN Zhixing,SHU Linyan,GUO Jianyu,XU Guoyong,TANG Jia,YANG Hairu,XIAO Bin
|
|
School of Public Health,Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou,Guangdong 510315,China;Guangdong Provincial Hospital for Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment,Guangzhou,Guangdong 510300,China
|
| Abstract: Objective Compare the baseline and post intervention sound attenuation values of two common hearing protectors,and evaluate the noise reduction effect of the two hearing protectors.Methods The general demographic characteristics,occupational history and the use of hearing protectors of 108 research subjects were obtained by questionnaire survey,the personal attenuation rating (PAR) of the subjects wearing foam earplugs (1100) and preformed earplugs (1260) was measured by 3MTM E-A-R fitTM binaural validation system;the comparison between PAR and nominal values was conducted using single sample t-test or single sample rank sum test;the Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test was used to compare the baseline and post intervention PAR of two types of hearing protectors in left and right ears of the same research subject;the Chi-square test was used to evaluate the PAR pass rate of hearing protectors with a test level of α=0.05 (bilateral).Results The results showed that the baseline and post-intervention PAR of two types of hearing protectors were both lower than nominal values in 108 subjects (P<0.001),and there was no significant difference in baseline PAR between two hearing protectors (P>0.05).The actual sound attenuation values at various frequencies were lower than theoretical sound attenuation value (P<0.05),the PAR and difference before and after intervention with foam earplugs were greater than those with preformed earplugs (P<0.001).After intervention with two kinds of hearing protectors, the PAR pass rate increased, with foam earplugs (67.59%) higher than preformed earplugs (17.59%).The sound attenuation value of foam earplugs after intervention was higher than the theoretical sound attenuation value at 4000 Hz and 8000 Hz (maximum difference was 9 dB),while the preformed earplugs were lower than the theoretical sound attenuation value at 500 Hz to 8000 Hz (maximum difference was 11 dB).Conclusion The results suggested that the nominal value of hearing protectors overestimates their actual sound attenuation level,one-to-one training and earplug suitability are helpful to improve the PAR of different hearing protectors, however,the training interventions for different hearing protectors have different effects on their noise reduction effectiveness,therefore,it is necessary to combine with the characteristics of sound attenuation spectral to select and wear hearing protectors that are suitable for work noise scene. |
| Keywords: hearing protector earplugs noise-induced hearing loss individual fit test personal attenuation rating (PAR) educational interventions |
